Zoe Lofgren

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment; and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), our colleague, and one of the authors of the amendment.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I wish every employer in America was able to follow the lead of the County of Santa Clara, California. County employees who are on active military duty in direct connection with an armed conflict receive a salary augmentation which, in combination with their military pay, provides 100% of their base salary. Their employee benefits are also continued while they are deployed. Employees receive this salary augmentation and benefits for an indefinite period as long as they are involved in military service. The effort to support those in military service, guard and Reserves, doesn't end there. The Veterans Service Office is a county funded agency established in 1946, assisting veterans and their families to obtain the benefits and services they have earned through their military services. The Veterans Service Office works closely with the Santa Clara County Employment Committee (VEC). The mission of the VEC is to promote the employment of veterans within the county by assisting local employers in recruiting veterans for job openings as well as providing employment-related assistance services for job-seeking veterans. Each month, the California Department of Veterans Affairs forwards a list of returning veterans to the County VSO. This list includes on average the names of 50 to 100 veterans who have indicated an interest in receiving information on the services available for them from the county. Upon their return each veteran receives a letter from the VSO and a copy of the county's ``Welcome Home'' pamphlet, which includes information on veterans' services, health care, employment assistance and other benefits. The Veterans Service Office, working in collaboration with the Peninsula Veterans Center, explores every opportunity to speak to returning veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. These talks occur as frequently as weekly, or whenever the officials are invited to address groups, such as new Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees--veterans who have recently returned home. I have heard from families that, even though there is understandable worry about a loved one in a combat zone, at least that worry is not joined by worry about financial disaster. For those deployed, the strain and stress of separation from family is not compounded by financial worries. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to draw attention to the efforts of the Government of Santa Clara County and its employees as they serve the needs of our returning veterans and those currently serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Many in our country disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq, but no American should disagree with the need to support our troops and their families while they serve and to assist veterans after their active service is complete. Santa Clara County, like other local governments in California, faces a fiscal bind. State and Federal governments have shifted costs to local government but in California, local governments have no ability to raise taxes in response. That means fiscal crunch time. Despite that, the people of Santa Clara County, led by its Board of Supervisors and professional staff know this: the time of deployment should not be fiscal crunch time for the service member and family. Let all employers, both public and private, look to Santa Clara County as a model of employer behavior. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of efforts of the Government of Santa Clara County and its employees as they serve the needs of our returning veterans and those currently serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. I am proud of the citizens and taxpayers of Santa Clara County who stand behind these fine efforts.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise along with my Santa Clara County colleagues Representatives Mike Honda and Anna Eshoo to acknowledge and honor Robert Sillen who is retiring after a noteworthy and successful career in public health serving the residents of Santa Clara County. In June, 1993, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, on which Congress Members Lofgren and Honda served, created a full-service, integrated County health care system consisting of the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, Department of Public Health, Department of Mental Health, Department of Custody Health Services and the Department of Alcohol & Drug Services. The Santa Clara Valley Health & Hospital System is responsible for a full continuum of preventive intervention and treatment services throughout the County, both directly under County auspices and through contracts with the private sector. The system is comprised of over 6,200 employees and has an annual operating budget of nearly $1.4 billion. Until very recently, Robert Sillen served as Executive Director and was responsible for all aspects of the system's operations, long range planning, private and public partnerships, community relations, and capital development and information systems. Mr. Sillen was fully accountable for the development of a cost effective, fully integrated system that is essential for the successful conversion to a full- service managed care delivery system in a highly competitive environment. In addition, he was responsible for designing and implementing a County-wide Medi-Cal Managed Care program in June 1996 as well as the Children's Health Initiative and Healthy Kids program in January, 2000. Prior to his position with the Santa Clara Valley Health & Hospital System, Mr. Sillen was Executive Director of the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, a 500-bed regional medical center with an operating budget of over $800 million and 4,500 full-time equivalent employees. Services range from community based primary care satellite clinics to regional services for treatment of bums, spinal cord injuries, head trauma, neonatal intensive care, poison control and trauma, the life flight helicopter and health services for those in jail custody. Prior to his executive director positions with the Santa Clara Valley Health & Hospital System and the Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, Mr. Sillen worked at the University Hospital at the UC Medical Center in San Diego, the City Hospital Center at Elmhurst, New York and the U.S. Public Health Service in New York, New York. He earned his Bachelor's degree from the University of Denver, Colorado and his Master's degree in Public Health from Yale University. Robert Sillen has acted as a guardian of the virtues and spirit behind the creation of the Santa Clara Valley Health & Hospital System. The initial challenges faced in establishing a foundation for a strong network of health providers with private, local, regional and national departments were dizzying, but achievable with Mr. Sillen at the helm. We sincerely thank him on behalf of the thousands of residents who have benefited from this system and wish him the very best upon his retirement.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill. I believe it provides critical privacy protections to the more than 180 million Americans who use cell phones. It will also protect the privacy of more than 100 million American homes with wired telephones. And it will protect Voice over IP users, now more than 2 million Americans and rapidly rising. I think we've heard too many stories of how easy it is to fraudulently obtain cell phone call records and even cell phone locations. We've heard of how one political blog bought Wesley Clark's cell phone records, but the fact is lots of ordinary Americans have reason to be concerned about the privacy of their phone records. Imagine what a criminal organization could do with the cell phone call records of an undercover law enforcement agent, or what an abuser could do with a spouse's cell phone location. No one should be able to get another person's phone records through fraud, and this bill makes it a crime to purchase or use phone records obtained through fraud. I want to thank Chairman Smith of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee and Ranking Member Conyers of the Judiciary Committee for their leadership in drafting this legislation, which I believe represents a sensible, bipartisan solution to a growing problem. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to pass this bill.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, consumers are currently exposed to difficult cancellation policies for service subscriptions that are more costly and burdensome than continuing the service and paying the annual or monthly fee. When consumers sign up for a service, they are often told that renewal occurs through automatic charges to their credit cards. When consumers decide to cancel, they run into difficulties, such as long distance phone calls with long hold times, all at the expense of the consumer. To combat such abusive business practices, I have introduced the Consumer Cancellation Fairness Act. My bill would require businesses to permit their customers to cancel subscription services in the same manner and by the same means they use to subscribe to such services. If one click on a Web site or a toll-free call is all it takes to sign up for a service, then one click or a toll-free call should be enough to cancel. I strongly urge this House to swiftly consider and pass the Consumer Cancellation Fairness Act to protect consumers from further abuse.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and honor the 294,969 California grandparents as well as 2.4 million grandparents around the Nation who act as primary guardians to grandchildren that are unable to live with their parents. As a result of the service and efforts of these individuals, many children around California and the country are able to live with relatives and stay out of the foster care system. According to the Census of 2000, 6.8 percent of California's children are living in grandparent-headed households as well as an additional 3.5 percent living in households headed by other non-parent relatives. I commend the efforts these relatives take in providing a safe and familiar living environment for these children. However, now more than ever, I also recognize the financial hardships and personal sacrifices faced by these guardians. As a cosponsor of H.R. 3380, The Guardianship Assistance Promotion and Kinship Support Act, I am committed to working toward a solution that will help to alleviate these financial burdens placed on guardians and give them access to Federal funds that they deserve. Today, on behalf of the constituents of the 16th District of California, I extend my deepest appreciation to these exceptional guardians. It is an honor to have many of these individuals in my own district whose care and commitment to vulnerable children help to build a better future for them.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, as in previous years, President Bush has proposed a budget that would harm women and girls across the country. At a time when over two-thirds of low-income elderly people are women and 56 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are women, the President has proposed substantial cuts in Medicare, food stamps, and food delivery programs. On top of the $22 billion cut in Medicare that was passed by this Republican-led Congress and the President in February, the Bush budget calls for $105 billion more in cuts over the next ten years. The President's budget also would eliminate the Commodity Supplemental Food Program which serves 420,000 seniors and 50,000 women and children with nutritious food packages, often delivered to their homes. Replacing this home delivery food program with food stamps is not the solution, as most people on the program are elderly and in need of home delivered food to survive and maintain their health. Moreover, many people now on the food delivery program do not qualify for food stamps for various reasons. That does not mean they are not in need of home delivered food. Even if we assumed food stamps were the answer for this group of seniors, women, and children, the Bush budget could cause 300,000 Americans to lose their food stamp benefits. The problems with the Bush budget do not end with cuts in Medicare, food stamps, and food delivery programs. Bush also intends to cut programs that have helped women and girls succeed in education and the workforce. In 1973, the Women's Educational Equity Act (WEEA) was introduced by a champion for women, the late Representative Patsy Mink. For more than 30 years, WEEA has funded hundreds of programs to expose girls to careers traditionally dominated by men, develop teaching strategies for math and science that engage girls, and to help schools comply with Title IX. At a time when the President is touting the need for a greater emphasis on science and math education, his budget would eliminate WEEA, along with $664 million in Federal Perkins Loan funds, just 2 months after Congressional Republicans cut college aid by $12 billion. This comes at a time when only 21 percent of master's degrees in engineering are awarded to women. The statistics are even worse for women of color. Of engineering master's degrees awarded to women, only 11 percent go to Asian-American women, 4 percent go to African-American women, and less than 4 percent go to Latinas. It seems that the President's ``competitiveness agenda'' does not apply to women. Furthermore, instead of closing the wage gap, the Bush budget would increase the gap by eliminating Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations program (WANO), which provides grants to employers to help recruit, train and retrain women in non-traditional, well-paying jobs. Statistics show that women in WANO were 47 percent more likely to enter a high-paying, technical occupation than women who were not a part of the program. Bush would eliminate this program at a time when women still earn less than men--on average 76 cents to every dollar that a man earns. Moreover, in high-paying, high-technology jobs, women who hold Ph.D.s in computer science and engineering earn $9,000 less than men. Women in the workforce faced with a wage gap and great need for child-care assistance would be turned away by the Bush budget. Since the beginning of the Bush Administration, 250,000 children have lost their child-care assistance. Bush would continue that trend by freezing funding for the Child Care Development Block Grant for the fifth year in a row. At this rate, 400,000 more children will lose their child-care assistance in the next 5 years, creating a situation where 25 percent less children receive this assistance than did in 2000. The Bush budget would also leave behind women who end up in violent situations, cutting $19.5 million in Violence Against Women programs and completely zeroing-out funding for new programs authorized by this Congress last year in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2005. From birth to old age and in their most vulnerable periods in life, the Bush budget would leave women and girls behind. I join my fellow members of the Women's Caucus today to call on Congress to reverse the harmful effects of the Bush's proposed budget on women and girls.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, yesterday former majority leader Tom DeLay announced that he is resigning from the House. His former aides, Michael Scanlon and Tony Rudy, have pled guilty to crimes for their involvement in the Jack Abramoff corruption affair, and other aides to Mr. DeLay and even other current Members of this body remain under investigation. Last November, Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham resigned from Congress for taking over $2 million in bribes from a defense contractor. He is now serving an 8-year prison sentence for his crimes. The House Ethics Committee is broken and has done no work in the past 15 months. The committee managed to have its first meeting of the 109th Congress last week. On Sunday, The Washington Post said, ``The panel's inactivity in the face of scandal is itself scandalous.'' Today's bill is characterized as important campaign finance reform by the House Republicans. The question is, what effect would this bill have on the countless scandals that are currently engulfing Washington? The answer is nothing. This bill does nothing to address those very serious charges of corruption. It would do nothing to prevent another Jack Abramoff or Duke Cunningham scandal. Further, in addition to doing nothing, the bill actually makes it easier for scandals to occur by opening up the flood gates and removing all limits on State and national party committee spending in the Federal races. Since this bill does nothing to reverse the Republican culture of corruption, let us look at this bill on the merits to see what it actually does. What this proposal would do is curtail the free speech rights of millions of Americans. The bill would limit the ability of average citizens to band together and speak out about issues, both during and beyond election. It limits participation in the electoral process. In 2004, 527 organizations helped to educate and register voters across the country. Now in 2002, the Shays-Meehan-McCain-Feingold bill actually was real reform with a clear purpose. It took Members of Congress out of the business of asking lobbyists and special interests for large, unregulated donations. 527 organizations, however, are not made up of elected officials. In fact, 527s are barred from coordinating with office holders, candidates or public officials. By law, these groups are independent, and I am not aware of any allegations that there was any illegal coordination between 527s and political parties in 2004. If there is, I would urge people with that knowledge to go to the Attorney General or to the FEC and report on this conduct. If there is some, there are mechanisms for enforcement, but the remedy to a nonproblem in that area is not to shut down free speech. In fact, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court upheld limitations on contributions as appropriate legislative tools to guard against the reality or appearance of improper influence stemming from candidates' dependence on large campaign contributions. Buckley also invalidated limitations on independent expenditures, on candidate expenditures from personal funds, and on overall campaign expenditures. The Court ruled that these provisions placed direct and substantial restrictions on the free speech rights guaranteed in the first amendment. This bill directly contradicts the Buckley ruling. It violates the first amendment and will not withstand scrutiny by the Court. Why are we considering this bill today? I suspect this is a last ditch effort for Republicans to keep their hold on power. They have read the polls. They know that most Americans are going to support Democrats this November, and the Republicans are losing on issue after issue. So they are going to try and change the rules which will keep them in power against the wishes of a majority of Americans. Let me finish by reviewing the ethics rules that this Congress has passed this year. At the beginning of the year, shortly after Jack Abramoff pled guilty, House Republicans boldly pushed through their reform plan for Congress. What did their plan to crack down on ethics do? It banned former Members from lobbying in the House gym and on the House floor. So America, you can rest easy knowing that at least the cesspool of corruption at the Stairmaster is no more. Today's bill is really a travesty. It is a joke. The country really should be embarrassed by the efforts this Congress is making, by the corruption that has been shown and I fear the corruption that is yet to be exposed in this body.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 320, a resolution that calls for the release of Dr. Pham Hong Son and other political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in Vietnam. Dr. Pham was imprisoned in 2002 for the simple act of translating a document posted on the U.S. Embassy's website entitled, ``What is Democracy?'' He has tirelessly worked in non-violent ways to promote democracy and freedom of speech, expression, and association in Vietnam. But Dr. Pham is not alone. Thousands of peaceful activists have been harassed, imprisoned, or been placed under house arrest for calling for basic human rights in Vietnam. The State Department, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Amnesty International, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and various Vietnamese-American groups have documented egregious violations of religious freedom, human rights, and free speech in the country. For the past two years, the State Department has designated Vietnam a ``country of particular concern'' which means Vietnam has been engaged in systematic, ongoing, egregious violations of religious freedom. In company with Vietnam are such human rights violators as Sudan, Burma, China, Iran, and North Korea. In its 2005 report, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom states, ``the government of Vietnam continues to commit systematic and egregious violations of religious freedom by harassing, detaining, imprisoning, and discriminating against leaders and practitioners from all of Vietnam's religious communities. Religious freedom conditions in Vietnam remain poor, and the overall human rights situation has deteriorated in the past two years.'' The Committee to Protect Journalists says, ``Press conditions in Vietnam largely stagnated in 2005, despite efforts by the country's leaders to project an image of greater openness. Three writers remained imprisoned on antistate charges for material distributed online; print and broadcast media continued to work under the supervision of the government; and attacks on journalists were common.'' For the past year, Vietnam has sought a new relationship with the United States. Prime Minister Phan Van Khai and several other high- level members of the Vietnamese government visited the U.S. in 2005. But if the Vietnamese government expects to cultivate this new relationship, it must start by respecting basic human rights of all citizens of Vietnam. I hope this Congress will show strong support for change in Vietnam by unanimously passing House Concurrent Resolution 320 today.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, on February 19, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 authorizing the Secretary of War to define military areas in which ``the right of any person to enter, remain in or leave shall be subject to whatever restrictions'' are deemed ``necessary or desirable.'' By the spring of 1942, California, Oregon, Washington, and Arizona were designated as military areas. In May of 1942, Santa Clara Valley Japanese Americans were ordered to ``close their affairs promptly, and make their own arrangements for disposal of personal and real property.'' Official government fliers were posted around California, Arizona and Washington instructing families to report to various assembly centers with just the bare necessities, leaving behind their homes, their lives, and most personal belongings. Because permanent camps were not yet built, large community gathering places, such as the Tanforan Racetrack in San Mateo County in Northern California and the Santa Anita Racetrack in Southern California became home to Japanese internees for several months before being moved. San Francisco Bay Area Japanese Americans were forced to live in horse stables at the Tanforan Racetrack until a permanent camp was built for them. Eleven thousand Japanese Americans and aliens were evacuated from their homes and incarcerated throughout the duration of the war. Three thousand of those interned were Japanese Americans from Santa Clara Valley. By the fall of 1942, most internees were transported to camps far away from home, to internment camps in Arizona, Northern and Central California, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and even as far away as Arkansas. Most remained in internment camps until the end of the war--3 long years later. The horror for Japanese Americans did not end upon their return to Santa Clara County in 1945 at the end of the war. Upon release, approximately 7,000 Japanese Americans moved to Santa Clara Valley. Most had no shelter, food, money, much less a job. Some returned to find their homes looted and destroyed. The San Jose Buddhist Church offered what it could--shelter and hot meals for most families. In Santa Clara County, the family of Bob Peckham (later to become Federal District Court Judge Bob Peckham) took title to the property of Japanese-American neighbors and was able to preserve property and return it at the end of the internment, so people in our area in some cases were saved the loss of their homes and businesses. All of this happened before I was born. But I remember very well learning about it even before it was added to the history textbooks. My mother was a young woman in 1942. My dad was in the army and she was building airplanes at Douglas Aircraft for the war effort. She told me about driving past the Tanforan Racetrack and how ashamed and guilty she felt. There were people locked up at the race track-- living in horse stables--who she knew had done nothing wrong. People who had been her neighbors had been rounded up suddenly and taken away. My mother told me how helpless she felt. She knew what her government was doing was wrong but she didn't know how to change it. She felt powerless but also felt guilty and ashamed because of what the United States government had done. She was a life long Democrat and cast her first Presidential vote for FDR . . . but she never agreed with what he did to her neighbors. There was no apology, no financial support, no help from the Federal Government until many years later. Finally, on February 19, 1976 President Gerald Ford formally rescinded Executive Order 9066. And, at long last, on July 21, 1980 Congress adopted legislation establishing the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC) to investigate the claim that the incarceration of Japanese Americans and legal resident aliens during World War II was justified by military necessity. On August 10, 1988 the Civil Liberties Act was signed into law, authorizing payments of $20,000 to each person that suffered from internment and established the Office of Redress to identify, locate, and pay these individuals, 82,219 were paid. By then my neighbors and my parents neighbors who had been unjustly incarcerated--Ed Kawazoe, Jimi Yamaichi, Ted and Raiko, and many others--received at long last an apology. Some lived long enough to receive the compensation provided for in the law. These efforts were celebrated in the community of Japanese Americans. But they were also celebrated in the broader community because Americans who were not incarcerated, like my mother, felt the shame and the guilt. And while an apology could not undo the injustice and the compensation did not fully cover the loss, it helped that our country admitted the mistake and tried to make amends. On March 4, 2004 H. Res. 56, introduced by Congressman Mike Honda, passed the House by a unanimous vote of 404-0. The resolution supports the goals of the Japanese, German, and Italian American communities in recognizing a National Day of Remembrance on the day FDR signed the infamous Executive Order 9066--February 19, 1942. It also seeks to increase public awareness of the events surrounding the restriction, exclusion, and internment of individuals and families during World War II. Today, I support Mr. Honda's resolution to recognize February 19th as the Day of Remembrance. It is the least we can do--spend one day per year reflecting on the horrors of internment, remember those who suffered, and work to find ways never to repeat that terrible page in history.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am very proud to join my colleagues today to honor a woman who not only contributed immensely to American jurisprudence, but also showed tremendous courage and perseverance in finding her way to the top of the legal field at a time when the legal field was virtually closed to women. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor graduated magna cum laude in 1950 with a bachelor's degree in economics from Stanford University, my alma mater. In just 2 years, instead of the usual 3 years, Justice O'Connor graduated third in her class at Stanford Law School in 1952 at a time, as the chairman has said, when only 4 percent of law school graduates were women. Despite her impressive law school record and obvious talent, Justice O'Connor could not find a single law firm that would give her a job after graduation, but that did not deter her. She heard that San Mateo County in California, the county just to the north of my home, had once hired a female attorney and so she decided to go there in search of her first legal job, but she learned that there was not enough funding in place or a place in the office for her to work. That did not deter her. She wrote a long letter explaining why she should be hired and offered to start work for free. She placed her desk in the same area where the secretaries sat. She got the job and before long a paid position opened up and she took it. Justice O'Connor's perseverance did not end there. She went on to become an assistant attorney general for Arizona. She was appointed and later elected to the Arizona State senate, elected as a county judge, and appointed to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Justice O'Connor has been a leader for women in many ways. She became the first woman to serve as the majority leader of the Arizona State senate and the first woman to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, paving the way and opening the door for the next generation of women to substantively participate in the field of law. In fact, I feel, as a lawyer myself, a debt of gratitude to Justice O'Connor for the groundbreaking path that she laid for all of us who followed. But let us not forget that she was not only a symbol of hope for aspiring women lawyers all around the Nation, but she has also been a powerful contributor to our American jurisprudence, often the pivotal fifth vote on some of the most important issues in modern American history that came before the U.S. Supreme Court. I strongly urge my colleagues in the House to unanimously approve this resolution honoring this extraordinary woman, and I look forward to a unanimous vote of support by the House of Representatives. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of House Resolutions 635, 636 and 637.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, during the December recess I was surprised to read in a newspaper article that I was listed as a cosponsor of House Resolutions 635, 636 and 637 since I had not cosponsored any of these measures. I discovered that due to administrative errors, my name was mistakenly added to these bills by the Judiciary Committee staff. I never was a cosponsor of any of them but the only way to correct the committee's error under the rules of the House is to ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor even though I never asked to be added to these pieces of legislation. I could not correct these errors until the House reconvened, which is why I am taking this action today. I have been involved in two impeachment proceedings against American Presidents. The first was in 1974, during the impeachment inquiry related to President Nixon when I served on the staff of a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Don Edwards. The second was in 1998, as a Member of the Judiciary Committee during the impeachment of President Clinton. Impeachment of a President is provided for in the Constitution only in cases of bribery, treason or ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' The latter phrase had a very specific meaning to the drafters of our Constitution and was meant to include misbehavior by a President that threatened the very nature of our government. President Nixon resigned before the Congress could vote on his impeachment, but the impeachment articles adopted by a bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee included behavior that was so lawless that it could threaten the very nature of the American government. The partisan 1998 impeachment was based on personal misbehavior by the President and was, in my judgment, a misuse of the impeachment provisions in the Constitution. Use of impeachment for any reason that does not meet the standard set in the Constitution must be avoided by the Congress. Serious questions have been raised about President Bush's actions in approving warrantless wiretaps by the NSA, as well as questions about both the Vice President's and the President's information that was provided to the Congress as the basis for the decision to initiate war in Iraq. These important questions need to be answered, and Congress should then consider the answers in a careful, deliberate and thoughtful manner. It is important that this process be done in a dispassionate way that avoids partisanship. This thorough analysis should, in my judgment, be undertaken before anything such as these resolutions are considered.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge and honor Catholic Charities of San Jose's 25th anniversary of its refugee resettlement programs. Less than 1 percent of the refugees in camps are accepted by Western countries for resettlement. Refugees who have already suffered unthinkable crimes and injustices are often forced to wait in camps for as long as 10 years before being interviewed for consideration. The very lucky few who are accepted for immigration to the United States often arrive with little to no money, few, if any, family and only the hope and dream of a better life. To ease this very difficult transition, Catholic Charities meets these refugees at the airport and begins the resettlement process immediately. They and their team of committed volunteers provide financial support for housing, food, clothing and other necessities, medical care, case management and independent living skills training such as budgeting skills, housing assistance and food preparation. In their 25 years of dedication and hard work, over 20,000 refugees have been assisted in their quest to build a better life for themselves and their future generations. Catholic Charities of San Jose provides these valuable services at no cost to the immigrant. This program is one of many that Catholic Charities provides in its overall vision of transforming lives. This wonderful organization strives to empower meaningful, quality living through economic, familial and emotional stability. Catholic Charities serves people of all beliefs, cultures, ethnicities and ages and serves a diverse population from various ethnic backgrounds and provides services in 17 languages. It is indeed an honor and a privilege to have a warm, welcoming and nurturing organization in my district that appreciates and honors the diversity that makes America, and specifically San Jose, California, a desirable place to live, work and raise a family.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation, I am proud to pay tribute to a woman who has greatly influenced the course of workers rights over the past 50 years, Ms. Dolores Huerta. On the occasion of her 75th birthday it is only fitting that we pause to honor Ms. Huerta's lifetime of courage and achievement. Ms. Huerta was born on April 10, 1930 in Dawson, New Mexico and was raised in Stockton, California amid the farm workers of the central San Joaquin Valley. Ms. Huerta's mother, Alicia Chavez, and her father, Juan Fernandez, instilled in her, through their own works, a drive to help and care for others. In her own life, Ms. Huerta has been an incalculable asset to the movement for the advancement of worker's rights and in particular, the rights of farm workers and their families. Ms. Huerta began advocacy for workers and their families in 1955 when she created the Stockton chapter of the Community Service Organization, CSO, after encountering farm workers' hungry children while teaching in a public school. Early in her endeavors, Ms. Huerta successfully lobbied, in Sacramento, for the removal of citizenship requirements from pension and public assistance programs. She also helped pass legislation that allowed people to take their drivers license examinations in their native language and established the right to vote in Spanish. Through her work with the CSO, Ms. Huerta met Caesar Chavez and together, in 1962, they founded the United Farm Workers of America, UFW. Ms. Huerta became the organization's First Vice President Emeritus. The UFW is perhaps best known for its role in the Delano Grape Strike beginning in 1965. The strike ended after 5 years of hard work and careful negotiations, which were led by Ms. Huerta, with the establishment of a 3-year collective bargaining agreement with the grape industry. Among Ms. Huerta's many achievements are several outstanding awards. She was bestowed with the California State Senate's Outstanding Labor Leader Award in 1984 and her impact on the national workers rights movement was highlighted in 1993 when Ms. Huerta was inducted into the National Women's Hall of Fame and received the Ellis Island Medal of Freedom Award, as well as several other awards. Although Ms. Huerta's efforts concentrated intensely on California, her impact on workers rights nationwide has been remarkable and merits our honor and admiration. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues--Reps. Becerra, Berman, Capps, Costa, Farr, Honda, Lantos, Matsui, Napolitano, Pelosi, Roybal-Allard, Linda Sanchez, Loretta Sanchez, Schiff, Sherman, Solis, Thompson, Waxman and Woolsey--join me in thanking Ms. Huerta for her tireless adherence to the improvement of workers rights across the United States. We are humbled to honor such a wonderful person who, for years, has been a great friend and inspiration to us all.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be here today in support of this measure. Since its passage in 1994, VAWA has been a success, and this measure, as has been mentioned, does reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Earlier in this Congress, I introduced a comprehensive bill to reauthorize the act. It had over 120 cosponsors, and I would like to publicly express my thanks to all of the cosponsors and especially the women who came forward with their ideas. It really was not my bill so much as it was a compilation of all the creativity of primarily the women of the House of Representatives to put together a bill that really went pretty far in providing assistance to victims of domestic violence. And I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for including most of that bill in this reauthorization. Along with the prevention programs and the housing grants for battered women, these measures will help ensure that victims have the means to escape the cycle of domestic violence and also to prevent that cycle from happening in the first place. There are a couple of provisions in the comprehensive bill that are not included. Most importantly, protections for workers and immigrants. And I am hopeful that, working together later in this Congress, we might be able to also address those issues. We know that domestic violence and sexual assault cause harm not only emotionally and physically but also financially and professionally. Victims of domestic violence lose 8 million paid workdays each year, the equivalent of 32,000 jobs, and almost 50 percent of sexual assault survivors lose their jobs. So we need to provide emergency leave, emergency benefits, unemployment compensation and job protection to address this important issue, not just the physical harm but the financial burden that accompanies this violence. I hope that we can address these shortcomings in the future. But, of course, I do not want to detract from celebrating the reauthorization of what we are doing today. It is something that we can be proud of. And I want to especially thank Hilda Solis, who is the cochair, I believe, of the Women's Caucus, who put so much time and effort into this along with so many other Members of the House.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for the purpose of entering into a brief colloquy.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez.)

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the co-author of the amendment, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).

Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am listening carefully. I am trying to work in a bipartisan manner on this, but the underlying problem here with this bill and this amendment as well is the poor administration of our laws by the Department of Homeland Security. I mentioned earlier today the pathetic performance of DHS during the Katrina disaster. And one of the things just that is seared in my memory is the, ``good job, Brownie,'' comment. And I think we have the same problem in the Department of Homeland Security and ICE. The chairman, I am sure, will recall that when we worked on reorganization, he insisted, I did not agree at the time but I now understand why he did, that any applicant for the head job have a minimum of 10 years experience in managing a large and complex organization. What ended up in the law was a 5-year minimum requirement in managing a large organization. Well, the President's favorite Democratic senator, Senator Lieberman, in opposing the new ICE director, Julie Myers, noted that, with over 20,000 employees, ICE is not only a big agency, it is a vital one. And Ms. Myers has virtually no immigration experience and also does not meet the minimum requirements. We now have a crony in charge of the immigration service. She may be a lovely person, I do not know, but she worked for a Federal prosecutor for 2 years. She worked for Ken Starr when he was special assistant. Her husband is the chief of staff to Mr. Chertoff. And her dad is a general, General Myers, who we all know of and think is a very good guy, but these are not the qualifications asked for in the statute nor expected by America. We need to move beyond cronyism into competence. And the fact that we have only had three enforcement actions in unlawful employment; that over 100,000 people have been cited and released and then failed to appear, and the department just continued to do that over and over again in the face of that failure-to-appear rate; the fact that we have not actually followed through on the institutional removal program which requires the immigration function to go out to county jails and to State prisons and to take individuals who have been convicted of crimes and deport them, that has not happened either. Those individuals instead in many cases were simply released because the Federal Government dropped the ball. The Bush administration has dropped the ball at the border. We have not put the staff forward. We have no technology to implement not only the bills and this amendment but the underlying law. And why? It is competence. I think it is a sad thing that this bill has been proposed. There are some good things in it. There are a lot of bad things in it. But it is really just to cover the fact that there has been a massive failure of administering current law by the Bush administration. If current law were adequately administered, we would not be here today. Perhaps the amendment is good. Maybe the gentleman has convinced me to support it. But it will not solve the problem. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.